NationStates Jolt Archive

Whoa There, big guy. I never once stated that you should be banned, DEATed, or otherwise (if I did, I would have gone to the mods long ago), my point is that all you have been doing on the last several pages is talking about how we cannot convince you otherwise, how your opinions are just as valid as ours (despite that you have not shown that in any way, shape or form), and how documented evidence and studies somehow make people LESS knowledgable about an issue, as opposed to the genius possesed by your parental hunches.

What I was getting at is that if you want to have people take your arguments seriously, you need to provide facts/evidence/arguments to back them up. And trolling doesn't necessarily have to involve dirty words, as you inferred earlier. Perhaps my example was not the best.

I think "quit trolling and get off this thread" speaks for itself. I did not say you wanted me deleted, stop exaggerating.
I have mentioned a number of things that have meant the information presented by Bottle etc has not changed my mind. My belief that the surveys are hypothetical not fact. The fact that I do not have any information to tell me how the surveys were conducted, eg. size of statistical set, diversity of the people surveyed and the context of the questions.
I have also said that due to other issues the AMA is hardly an unbiased body in this matter, this was also raised by Thuthmose III. I have also mentioned that the real-life examples provided were irrelevant as all the children mentioned were under 14. The legislation in place now allows parents to access their children's medical records up to the age of 14. This legislation would increase that to the age of 16.
It seems you have chosen not to take any notice of these things, perhaps blinded by your own need to attack my viewpoint. At least I read the information provided by Bottle etc, you obviously could not do the same.

One more thing. In the last paragraph of what I quoted from you up there, you say that you have been overviewing the processes by which you came to your conclusions, and looking at the posts of those who disagree with you. I suppose this is meant to give us the impression that you're not completely inflexible. However, you also state at the same time, that despite looking at accredited studies, facts, and good ol' logic, you still will not concede a single point on this issue. I suppose this is because your entire "argument" hinges upon the fact that Bottle's studies are likely scenarios, not set-in-stone truth. While making educated guesses is perfectly acceptable (and is just more likely to be right). Personally, I would take the "assumptions" of accredited studies conducted by doctors, mental health experts, and those in the know about youth issues, above your gut instinct any day.

Yes, I always challenge the principles that shape my decisions. For the reasons I stated above I have not changed my stance on the issue. I think logic dictates that a parent, as guardian of their dependent child, has the right to know what is happening to their child. That is logical to me, it may not be to you.
I did not ask for you to take my views over anyone elses. I stated my views on the issues, stated why the information provided to me by Bottle etc did not change my mind.

This is exactly why I took the middle-of-the-line stance I did a couple of pages ago. I think that if a child can give a reason for their wish to keep certain medical visits from their parents, they should be able to apply to have such hidden from their medical record if their parents request them. Thus, something like the flu would be reported to parents because there really is no reason not to tell them (at least none that I can think of). However, if the child came in for a pregnancy test and requested that it be hidden, it is possible that it would not be reported to the parents. I know the current legislation doesn't do that and neither does the proposed legislation. However, I think it would be a better system all-round.

The misconception you have is that a childs access to a medical practioner or counsellor will be "reported" to the parents. This is not true. The legislation states that parents will have access to the records, they will not be reported to them.
Therefore, if a child wants a pregnancy test and the parents are oblivious to the fact their daughter may be pregnant then the parents will more than likely never know about it.
Such legislation for children up to the age of 14 is already in place and I have not heard of "snooping" parents asking for their child's medical records every month to check up on them.

Vending machines do not teach people anything, they provide easy and anonymous access to contraception. As I mentioned above, children are being taught about contraception and sexuality from an early age now (I was taught at 12) either by their parents or at school.
The "morning after" pill is also available "over the counter" in Victoria at the moment, not sure about other states.

Yes, the same is true in America. However, many children don't really listen much in class. Take the example I cited a couple of posts ago for an example. The girl I mentioned had taken sex-ed classes since grade school, but was not aware that it is possible to become pregnant while on your period. Why? She didn't listen all that closely in class. A clinic, on the other hand, will generally not give you contraceptives without explaining proper use, what it will and will not do, etc. and making sure the patient understands.

Yes, this is why it is important for parents to also educate their children on these matters. As uncomfortable as it may be for most children and parents alike, a school is not solely responsible for educating your child on these and many other matters and as such parents need to sit down with their child and inform them of these things. Parents are often to blame in these situations because it is easy to let schools take over this role but it is the parents' responsibility to educate their children in these matters also.


By the way, how come my position is being ignored in this discussion? *pouts* hehe

I am responding to your position!

Yes, but I meant my original post where I laid things out in much more detail. =)

Yes, I did read your original post about your middle of the road stance. I understand your reasons for it. The main reason why noone responded is because we were all caught up in our own arguments and I guess it got left behind. It happens in these threads unfortunately.

National Privacy Principles (Extracted from the Privacy Amendment (Private Sector) Act 2000)

Principle 6: Access and Correction covers exceptions for accessing personal records:

http://www.privacy.gov.au/publications/npps01.html#f

6.1: If an organisation holds personal information about an individual, it must provide the individual with access to the information on request by the individual, except to the extent that:....

b. in the case of health information—providing access would pose a serious threat to the life or health of any individual

This is privacy legislation as it currently stands in Australia.

The misconception you have is that a childs access to a medical practioner or counsellor will be "reported" to the parents. This is not true. The legislation states that parents will have access to the records, they will not be reported to them.

No, I didn't think that all. I just think that in certain cases, a child should be able to petition that their parents not have access to certain information in the event that the parent does request medical records. If the parent has all-access, they may be checking the child's vaccinations or something and find out about a pregnancy test. However, if the child could petition that such things never be reported to the parents, then the requested records would not show that particular instance.

Therefore, if a child wants a pregnancy test and the parents are oblivious to the fact their daughter may be pregnant then the parents will more than likely never know about it.

This would help a child who may be in danger to make sure they don't find out about it unless the child decides to tell them.

Such legislation for children up to the age of 14 is already in place and I have not heard of "snooping" parents asking for their child's medical records every month to check up on them.

I haven't either, but I could think of instances in which a parent may be checking for something specific and find out something they weren't supposed to know. If nothing else, having a petition system in place would make the child feel more comfortable getting treatment, whether their parents ever actually check the records or not.

Yes, this is why it is important for parents to also educate their children on these matters. As uncomfortable as it may be for most children and parents alike, a school is not solely responsible for educating your child on these and many other matters and as such parents need to sit down with their child and inform them of these things. Parents are often to blame in these situations because it is easy to let schools take over this role but it is the parents' responsibility to educate their children in these matters also.

It's really too bad not all parents feel that way. Bravo.

Yes, I did read your original post about your middle of the road stance. I understand your reasons for it. The main reason why noone responded is because we were all caught up in our own arguments and I guess it got left behind. It happens in these threads unfortunately.

I figured as much. I'm not bitter or anything, I was just curious about people's response to the idea.

The misconception you have is that a childs access to a medical practioner or counsellor will be "reported" to the parents. This is not true. The legislation states that parents will have access to the records, they will not be reported to them.

No, I didn't think that all. I just think that in certain cases, a child should be able to petition that their parents not have access to certain information in the event that the parent does request medical records. If the parent has all-access, they may be checking the child's vaccinations or something and find out about a pregnancy test. However, if the child could petition that such things never be reported to the parents, then the requested records would not show that particular instance.

It may well be the case that they can petition to have a parent banned from accessing their records. For example an estranged parent or a parent with a record of abuse could be blocked from accessing their child's medical records. As with all privacy issues there are exceptions to the rule and these petitions could be made.

Therefore, if a child wants a pregnancy test and the parents are oblivious to the fact their daughter may be pregnant then the parents will more than likely never know about it.

This would help a child who may be in danger to make sure they don't find out about it unless the child decides to tell them.

The legislation may also mean a child decides against having unprotected sex knowing their parents may find out.

Such legislation for children up to the age of 14 is already in place and I have not heard of "snooping" parents asking for their child's medical records every month to check up on them.

I haven't either, but I could think of instances in which a parent may be checking for something specific and find out something they weren't supposed to know. If nothing else, having a petition system in place would make the child feel more comfortable getting treatment, whether their parents ever actually check the records or not.

Perhaps, but a petition would require a genuine reason, not just because they want one. I am assuming that parents would ask about vaccinations at their local doctor rather than request medical records. Either in person or by mail requesting a letter from the doctor confirming vaccinations had been administered.

Yes, this is why it is important for parents to also educate their children on these matters. As uncomfortable as it may be for most children and parents alike, a school is not solely responsible for educating your child on these and many other matters and as such parents need to sit down with their child and inform them of these things. Parents are often to blame in these situations because it is easy to let schools take over this role but it is the parents' responsibility to educate their children in these matters also.

It's really too bad not all parents feel that way. Bravo.

Parents have a responsibility to their children. Sometimes it is easy to dismiss their role in the upbringing of their children. I believe their role is vital, hence my stance on this issue.

As much as I detest the Libs and their policies, I really don't think this one is such a big deal - I mean, we are talking about individuals who are legally defined as children. It's not like the parents of a 21 year old are going to able to access confidential medical records...

Children below 16 aren't really in the best position to make potentially life changing or even life threatening medical/medicinal deicisions without parental guidance.

My 2 cents. :wink:

[quote=Dempublicents]
It may well be the case that they can petition to have a parent banned from accessing their records. For example an estranged parent or a parent with a record of abuse could be blocked from accessing their child's medical records. As with all privacy issues there are exceptions to the rule and these petitions could be made.

The way I understand it, this law would not include such exceptions. I think it should. I also wouldn't expect them to be blocked completely after such a petition, because this would tell the parents that the child was hiding something. I just think the incident petitioned could be hidden.

The legislation may also mean a child decides against having unprotected sex knowing their parents may find out.

Sure, in one case out of about a million, but other than that highly unlikely. If a person is going to have sex, they are going to have sex - and are probably somewhat rebellious already. But the more likely situation is that the child does it, thinking nothing can happen to them and has some sort of problem. Then they need somewhere to go.

Perhaps, but a petition would require a genuine reason, not just because they want one. I am assuming that parents would ask about vaccinations at their local doctor rather than request medical records. Either in person or by mail requesting a letter from the doctor confirming vaccinations had been administered.

I have stated that, in the proposal I made, there would need to be a genuine reason for the petition. "I'm a rebellious teen" just wouldn't cut it. As for the vaccinations, that was the first example that came to my mind. Any of the reasons you have cited for why you should have access to the records would work. A parent could check the records for whatever reason and would find something out.

Parents have a responsibility to their children. Sometimes it is easy to dismiss their role in the upbringing of their children. I believe their role is vital, hence my stance on this issue.

I haven't dismissed the parents' role. I agree with you wholeheartedly on the responsibility parents *should* have to their children and would never dismiss it. The problem is, I recognize that fact that there are many parents (and not a small percentage) who don't share these views. If you don't, you have a rather naive view of the world. It is those parents that children need an outlet from.

Take the example I cited a couple of posts ago for an example. The girl I mentioned had taken sex-ed classes since grade school, but was not aware that it is possible to become pregnant while on your period. Why? She didn't listen all that closely in class. A clinic, on the other hand, will generally not give you contraceptives without explaining proper use, what it will and will not do, etc. and making sure the patient understands.

Except, as we have all acknowledged previously, Australia and the US differ greatly in terms of healthcare. It is near impossible to draw comparisons.

Take the example I cited a couple of posts ago for an example. The girl I mentioned had taken sex-ed classes since grade school, but was not aware that it is possible to become pregnant while on your period. Why? She didn't listen all that closely in class. A clinic, on the other hand, will generally not give you contraceptives without explaining proper use, what it will and will not do, etc. and making sure the patient understands.

Except, as we have all acknowledged previously, Australia and the US differ greatly in terms of healthcare. It is near impossible to draw comparisons.

Take the example I cited a couple of posts ago for an example. The girl I mentioned had taken sex-ed classes since grade school, but was not aware that it is possible to become pregnant while on your period. Why? She didn't listen all that closely in class. A clinic, on the other hand, will generally not give you contraceptives without explaining proper use, what it will and will not do, etc. and making sure the patient understands.

Except, as we have all acknowledged previously, Australia and the US differ greatly in terms of healthcare. It is near impossible to draw comparisons.

Take the example I cited a couple of posts ago for an example. The girl I mentioned had taken sex-ed classes since grade school, but was not aware that it is possible to become pregnant while on your period. Why? She didn't listen all that closely in class. A clinic, on the other hand, will generally not give you contraceptives without explaining proper use, what it will and will not do, etc. and making sure the patient understands.

Except, as we have all acknowledged previously, Australia and the US differ greatly in terms of healthcare. It is near impossible to draw comparisons.

You're right! In Australia, the children are a completely different species! And they always listen to every single thing that is taught to them in school. There has never been an Australian child who got a bad grade in school, because they are all perfect and listen to everything told to them.

And in Australia, you use a condom by swallowing it, rather than placing it over the penis. In Australia, there is no birth control and all parents are perfect and teenagers never have sex.

You're right, no comparisons can be drawn.

Take the example I cited a couple of posts ago for an example. The girl I mentioned had taken sex-ed classes since grade school, but was not aware that it is possible to become pregnant while on your period. Why? She didn't listen all that closely in class. A clinic, on the other hand, will generally not give you contraceptives without explaining proper use, what it will and will not do, etc. and making sure the patient understands.

Except, as we have all acknowledged previously, Australia and the US differ greatly in terms of healthcare. It is near impossible to draw comparisons.

You're right! In Australia, the children are a completely different species! And they always listen to every single thing that is taught to them in school. There has never been an Australian child who got a bad grade in school, because they are all perfect and listen to everything told to them.

And in Australia, you use a condom by swallowing it, rather than placing it over the penis. In Australia, there is no birth control and all parents are perfect and teenagers never have sex.

You're right, no comparisons can be drawn.

Well, obviously you are being misled as to how things are in Australia. Your lack of knowledge (as above) brings into serious question as to the way US children are educated.

I did not say education systems are any different. I said that the US health system is different to Australia's.

As much as I detest the Libs and their policies, I really don't think this one is such a big deal - I mean, we are talking about individuals who are legally defined as children. It's not like the parents of a 21 year old are going to able to access confidential medical records...

Children below 16 aren't really in the best position to make potentially life changing or even life threatening medical/medicinal deicisions without parental guidance.

My 2 cents. :wink:

I agrre, it is one of the things I have been saying since the beginning.

Well, obviously you are being misled as to how things are in Australia.

Why? Because I don't believe that basic human nature and the types of people that exist are basically the same everywhere?

Your lack of knowledge (as above) brings into serious question as to the way US children are educated.

My lack of knowledge on what exactly? Or are you perhaps referring to the example I used of a friend who had a lack of knowledge. This doesn't call into question the way US children are educated because, as I quite obviously pointed out, the point that she didn't know was covered in sex-ed. However, she was never much of a scholar and probably didn't listen much in that class and missed that particular point. At least read the post before you reply.

I did not say education systems are any different. I said that the US health system is different to Australia's.

That's funny, because you were replying to a point about the education of teenagers on sexual health issues, not a general point about any health system.

My lack of knowledge on what exactly?

See below...

In Australia, the children are a completely different species! And they always listen to every single thing that is taught to them in school. There has never been an Australian child who got a bad grade in school, because they are all perfect and listen to everything told to them.

And in Australia, you use a condom by swallowing it, rather than placing it over the penis. In Australia, there is no birth control and all parents are perfect and teenagers never have sex.

Now, I understand that you are not Australian, so you're forgiven for being 100% wrong about our society.

My lack of knowledge on what exactly?

See below...

In Australia, the children are a completely different species! And they always listen to every single thing that is taught to them in school. There has never been an Australian child who got a bad grade in school, because they are all perfect and listen to everything told to them.

And in Australia, you use a condom by swallowing it, rather than placing it over the penis. In Australia, there is no birth control and all parents are perfect and teenagers never have sex.

Now, I understand that you are not Australian, so you're forgiven for being 100% wrong about our society.

*Sigh* While I know that there are people on this forum with no capability whatsoever of comprehending sarcasm, I am going to go out on a limb here and assume that you have given up all pretense of actually arguing your point and have decided instead to just screw with me. To believe the alternative is just too painful.

While I know that there are people on this forum with no capability whatsoever of comprehending sarcasm, I am going to go out on a limb here and assume that you have given up all pretense of actually arguing your point and have decided instead to just screw with me. To believe the alternative is just too painful.

The debate is really over you know. The issue has been exhausted. I could argue that you used sarcasm because YOU have given up.

While I know that there are people on this forum with no capability whatsoever of comprehending sarcasm, I am going to go out on a limb here and assume that you have given up all pretense of actually arguing your point and have decided instead to just screw with me. To believe the alternative is just too painful.

The debate is really over you know. The issue has been exhausted. I could argue that you used sarcasm because YOU have given up.

No, you couldn't. My sarcasm was used to actually make a point, one which I had already made but which had been ignored. Your post made no point whatsoever. Besides, up until tonight you have not replied to any of the points I have made, so the debate is only over if you have nothing to offer in refute.

The way I understand it, this law would not include such exceptions. I think it should. I also wouldn't expect them to be blocked completely after such a petition, because this would tell the parents that the child was hiding something. I just think the incident petitioned could be hidden.

Show me where it says such petitions would not be heard. I have not seen anything stating this.

Sure, in one case out of about a million, but other than that highly unlikely. If a person is going to have sex, they are going to have sex - and are probably somewhat rebellious already. But the more likely situation is that the child does it, thinking nothing can happen to them and has some sort of problem. Then they need somewhere to go.

Ah, but if a person were to know the consequences of their sexual activity would they not rethink their actions? Children have access to condoms and are also educated on the use of these contraceptives. They have the resources to make decisons yet they choose to have unprotected sex. This clear lack of judgement is reason for the parents to have access to their child's records should they choose to.
As I have said there are anonymous counsellors available on help lines etc for children to get advise in they feel they cannot approach their parents. Whether they choose to follow that advise is up to them.

I have stated that, in the proposal I made, there would need to be a genuine reason for the petition. "I'm a rebellious teen" just wouldn't cut it. As for the vaccinations, that was the first example that came to my mind. Any of the reasons you have cited for why you should have access to the records would work. A parent could check the records for whatever reason and would find something out.

Yes, heaven forbid a parent finds out what their child is doing with their life and their body.


I haven't dismissed the parents' role. I agree with you wholeheartedly on the responsibility parents *should* have to their children and would never dismiss it. The problem is, I recognize that fact that there are many parents (and not a small percentage) who don't share these views. If you don't, you have a rather naive view of the world. It is those parents that children need an outlet from.

So we legislate for the minority and assume all parents are bad parents, denying parents who care for their children the right to know what is happening to their child? I would also like to see evidence that "not a small percentage" of parents do not wish to have a role in their child's life.

National Privacy Principles (Extracted from the Privacy Amendment (Private Sector) Act 2000)

Principle 6: Access and Correction covers exceptions for accessing personal records:

http://www.privacy.gov.au/publications/npps01.html#f

6.1: If an organisation holds personal information about an individual, it must provide the individual with access to the information on request by the individual, except to the extent that:....

b. in the case of health information—providing access would pose a serious threat to the life or health of any individual

This is privacy legislation as it currently stands in Australia.

And it is this very legislation that would be over-ruled if Tony Abbott's proposal was made law. Otherwise, why is he proposing a change? Please re-read the front page of this thread which details his proposals.

Take the example I cited a couple of posts ago for an example. The girl I mentioned had taken sex-ed classes since grade school, but was not aware that it is possible to become pregnant while on your period. Why? She didn't listen all that closely in class. A clinic, on the other hand, will generally not give you contraceptives without explaining proper use, what it will and will not do, etc. and making sure the patient understands.

Except, as we have all acknowledged previously, Australia and the US differ greatly in terms of healthcare. It is near impossible to draw comparisons.

No, it is not impossible to do so.

You merely wish to avoid the parallels as they undermine the already shaky foundations of your support for the proposed legislation.

My lack of knowledge on what exactly?

See below...

In Australia, the children are a completely different species! And they always listen to every single thing that is taught to them in school. There has never been an Australian child who got a bad grade in school, because they are all perfect and listen to everything told to them.

And in Australia, you use a condom by swallowing it, rather than placing it over the penis. In Australia, there is no birth control and all parents are perfect and teenagers never have sex.

Now, I understand that you are not Australian, so you're forgiven for being 100% wrong about our society.

It is many Australians, including both sides of parliament (remember the backbench revolt that this is about?) and the Australian Medical Association that oppose this stupid proposal.

You are not forgiven for being so wrong about Australia.

Looks like this discussion has run out of steam.

The way I understand it, this law would not include such exceptions. I think it should. I also wouldn't expect them to be blocked completely after such a petition, because this would tell the parents that the child was hiding something. I just think the incident petitioned could be hidden.

Show me where it says such petitions would not be heard. I have not seen anything stating this.

My point is that the legislation needs to specifically provide for such
petitions and how to determine whether or not they are approved. Otherwise, (a) children will still be less likely to seek help and (b) the approval/denial of such petitions would not be consistent.

[Ah, but if a person were to know the consequences of their sexual activity would they not rethink their actions?

When I went skydiving, I had to sign in three different places in bold,
capitalized print where it said YOU MAY DIE IF YOU DO THIS. I wanted to do it though, so I still went ahead with it. It was fun. Some people respond well to the carrot-stick philosophy, but rebellious teens often do not.

[Children have access to condoms and are also educated on the use of these contraceptives. They have the resources to make decisons yet they choose to have unprotected sex. This clear lack of judgement is reason for the parents to have access to their child's records should they choose to.

You know, just because someone uses condoms doesn't mean they won't get pregnant, STD, etc. I'm sure they teach that in your education system too.

As I have said there are anonymous counsellors available on help lines etc for children to get advise in they feel they cannot approach their parents. Whether they choose to follow that advise is up to them.

And if the advice is "tell your parents even though they are relgious
fundamentalists and may beat you up/try to send you to a mental
institution/etc."?

Yes, heaven forbid a parent finds out what their child is doing with their life and their body.

If that parent could be even more physically or emotionally dangerous than the problem, I think them finding out would be a bad thing.

So we legislate for the minority and assume all parents are bad parents, denying parents who care for their children the right to know what is happening to their child?

No, that's why I proposed the petition system rather than an across-the-board ban on parents seeing the medical records. Apparently you haven't been reading my posts. Doing so would protect those children who do have bad parents, while still allowing the good ones full access.

I would also like to see evidence that "not a small
percentage" of parents do not wish to have a role in their child's
life.

I didn't say they didn't want to have a role in their child's life, although
there are many parents like that. What I said is that, especially in certain
situations, there are parents who do want to take a role, but will take the
wrong role. I don't have any studies or statistics for this (not that you
would accept them anyways), but I have seen in my own personal experience that the percentage is much higher than you apparently think it is.

Dempublicents, all of your arguments seem to be based on "worst-case-scenario" type parents. The vast majority of parents out there would be better suited to make such serious decisions than would children (and the inidividuals we are talking about ARE children, as legally defined).

Sure, there are some nutjob parents out there that would make things worse if they were informed, but these are the exceptions to the rule rather than the norm.

Dempublicents, all of your arguments seem to be based on "worst-case-scenario" type parents. The vast majority of parents out there would be better suited to make such serious decisions than would children (and the inidividuals we are talking about ARE children, as legally defined).

Sure, there are some nutjob parents out there that would make things worse if they were informed, but these are the exceptions to the rule rather than the norm.

And you think there should be no way to protect the kids who do have bad parents? In case you haven't read my arguments, I have not advocated keeping all parents from seeing medical records. I simply advocated a system in which a child who felt they could not allow their parents to find something out could petition to have that something hidden from their parents. The people deciding on the petition would be the decision-makers here and would make decisions on a case-by-case basis.

In truth, I haven't argued any extreme side here. The difference is that no one from the side directly opposed to Tygaland's statements has answered me. Thus, the only debate you have read from me is from my central view vs. one extreme side. I would argue just as strongly that there shouldn't be an across-the-board law for the exact reason that most parents are not the "worst-case scenario."